By February 25, 2013 9 Comments Read More →

10 Scientific Dogmas That Should be Questioned to Support Our Evolution

Buck Rogers, Staff Writer
Waking Times

“The Science of Delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in.” -Rupert Sheldrake

The default scientific worldview of physical materialism is a paradigm that is being challenged in these paradoxical times. Technology continues to support human evolution, while also creating immense mindless destruction. Meanwhile, many people are having powerful spiritual experiences, unexplainable by science, that are causing an evolution in our inquiry into the nature of reality.

It seems that science and spirituality rarely co-exist, and in order for our worldview to evolve and our plight to improve, some of the rigid conventions of modern science should be re-examined.

Perhaps the most important belief of modern science worthy of further examination is the idea that nature is mechanical and constant, and that the universe was created out of nothing at the moment of the big bang, then instantly imbued with all of the laws and behaviors it would need ever more. In this paradigm, the habits of nature do not evolve, nor do the forces of nature. These remain constant, and that which cannot be explained is relegated to hallucination or cultural programming.

Gravitational force, for example, is an empirical physical constant that is difficult to measure accurately.  Known as ‘Newton’s Constant,’ or ‘Big G’, this number is used in measuring the gravitational force between two bodies, and is taken from averages measured around the world. In recent years, ‘Big G’, has varied by more than 1.3%, a rather dramatic fluctuation.

Is it possible that the force of gravity affecting planet earth could be naturally fluctuating throughout the day, or that it changes in relation to other celestial bodies or events?

Under the current scientific paradigm, we may never know if gravity does in fact fluctuate because it is considered a ‘constant,’ and therefore no further investigation is warranted, thus demonstrating how, as a belief system, science contradicts it’s primary purpose as a method of inquiry.

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, known for his forward-thinking works on the theory of Morphic Resonance, and author of the book, ‘Science Set Free,’ gives us ten scientific dogmas that should be challenged with serious inquiry. Doing so would open up a tremendous new world of possibilities for re-examining the one riddle that science cannot solve: What is the nature of the human mind?

  1. Nature is mechanical – All creatures and systems in nature are but lumbering robots fulfilling a genetically programmed role.
  2. Matter is unconscious – Stars, plants, animals, water, etc, are just material things and therefore do not and cannot have consciousness.
  3. The laws of nature are fixed – This is the idea that natural laws were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang, and will continue to be constant until the end of time. The habits of nature do not evolve.
  4. The total amount of matter and energy is the same
  5. Nature is purposeless – There is no design in nature, and the evolutionary process is merely a mechanical function. There is no higher purpose.
  6. Biological heredity – The traits of a species are composed of a physical material that resides in the genes.
  7. Memories are stored inside of the brain as material traces – Stored somewhere in the proteins and nerve endings are the memories of the mind. Like a physical filing cabinet.
  8. The mind is inside the head – The mind is physically bound to the head and brain in some way.
  9. Psychic phenomenon, like telepathy, is impossible – Thoughts have no effect on the outside world because the mind is inside the head.
  10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works – It is merely chance or the placebo effect if a natural remedy or other healing practice seems to affect physical healing.

Once direct experience has clearly demonstrated to an individual that science is incapable of explaining the total complexities of the mind and the immense nature of reality, then it is nearly impossible for an individual to return to the previously held belief of rigid material science.

Direct challenges to these dogmas, often in the form of out of body experiences, near-death experiences, or experiences with plant medicines such as Ayahuasca and psilocybin, can also permanently destroy one’s tendency to view the world in dogmatic scientific terms.

Until these dogmatic conventions are widely overturned and mystery and wonder is welcomed back into the scientific process, we will continue to see science fall short in the domain of ethics, sustainability and morality.

About the Author

Buck Rogers is the earth bound incarnation of that familiar part of our timeless cosmic selves, the rebel within. He is a surfer of ideals and meditates often on the promise of happiness in a world battered by the angry seas of human thoughtlessness. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com.

This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…

9 Comments on "10 Scientific Dogmas That Should be Questioned to Support Our Evolution"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Enbe says:

    Thank You, Buck Rogers, for your sweet words and intentions supporting our fantastic evolution. 5 thumbs up. ♥

  2. Halderon says:

    Science is a relatively new process that attempts to come up with universal laws that govern not only us, but also the things that surround us. No Scientist that I have ever read, even comes close to defining consciousness,let alone say that “it is all in the brain.” We simply don’t know,so it merits further inquiry. What science says is the external is created by the internal-human perception is not a measurable constant.- We do know that we create our own world by how we perceive it-if you believe that everything is against you, you perceive a hostile world. “Reality” is a bunch of atoms vibrating at different frequencies,and knowing this, the brain puts it in understandable terms. We think that the human mind is used 100%, and can map it. The human Geonone has been been found,and we are aware of our capabilities. More sophisticated experimentation than was used in 1928 to study the speed of light is available. What the author fails to understand is that science, like everything else, is evolving,and what is true today may not be true tomorrow. That is what science does-it does not rest.

  3. dimitri says:

    Science is wrong 99.999999999% of the time. Ask any de-deluded scientist. All scientists are victims of their own egos. How could they not be? What human being could tolerate being wrong all the time? You have to start making up lies eventually. Religions understood this from the git go. What’s wrong with scientists? All that data gathering becomes a drag from the bottomless void. Lots of talk, no learning.

  4. abinico warez says:

    Sciences starts to fail when it forgets that its dogmas are just assumptions.

  5. Frank says:

    See my latest film, Beyond Reason, at http://www.beyondmefilm.com for more information about the history of modern science and it’s dogmas.

  6. P. W. Baker says:

    Mark Twain put it most aptly:
    “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

  7. misterkel says:

    Read A Spiritual Autopsy of Science and Religion by Kelly Mitchell. It addresses these issues in depth, using rigorous logic to undermine the scientific materialist bias. Some pretty interesting stuff there. Link:

    http://www.amazon.com/A-Spiritual-Autopsy-Science-Religion/dp/1897244681/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344768825&sr=8-1&keywords=spiritual+autopsy

  8. Flip Morgan says:

    I wouldn’t call this list “scientific dogma”. If a scientist had some fevered dream that the sun and water had consciousness and thought it ‘might’ be true, they would experiment and investigate and try to find evidence of consciousness. That IS being open minded! To believe so without any physical evidence is just foolish in my opinion. No competent scientist would ever say,”science already understands the nature of reality..” or that science is always right. History shows us that science is built upon as discoveries are made. Galileo said that earth was not the center of the solar system. Newton wrote equations that showed how gravity made planets orbit. He DID get some of it right. Einstein added more details, better, still not perfect. Hubble, Hawking and others continued this knowledge building. Without their work we couldn’t send rockets into space(trajectories from Newton). Einstein’s work explained why the clock on a satellite going 18,000 MPH in orbit runs slower than clocks on earth. Without adjusting for that difference GPS couldn’t function. Without science we would still be living in caves.
    As for this, “Is it possible that the force of gravity affecting planet earth could be naturally fluctuating…”, science has show that many things cause gravity fluctuations such as magma convection, melting glaciers and the moon and more. Gravity’s force upon two objects is determined by the mass of each and their distance from each other. With more objects and moving objects you get more fluctuation. At Hudson Bay in Canada gravity has been changing because the Earth’s crust had been slowly rising back up since the end of Ice Age when crust was crushed down by 2 mile high glaciers. Magma flows into the area as the crust rises. This changes the amount of mass directly below land surface. Gravity fluctuations on earth in a given area are caused by movement of masses, not by any change in the ‘Constant’.

    The ‘Constant’ is the mass to distance ratio. If you know the mass and the distance of ANY two objects you can formulate the exact force of gravity accurately in every situation. That’s how we send space craft to other worlds! If the ‘Constant’ changed is simply would by impossible.

    No scientist

Post a Comment

Translate »